Read a list feed

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns posts from list accounts, sorted newest first, and explains the input format (list URI or bsky.app link). It does not address pagination or access requirements, but this is relatively minor for a read-only feed tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences. The first states what the tool returns and its ordering; the second provides a concrete source for the required list URI. There is no redundant phrasing or fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a simple read-only feed tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core requirement: the resource type, the input source, and the ordering. It lacks explicit pagination guidance or a note about list visibility, but the schema provides a cursor parameter and the list URI source is clear enough for an agent to make a correct call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%: list, limit, and account all have some description. The description adds helpful context for the list parameter by pointing to get_pinned_feeds or bsky.app links, but it does not clarify the undocumented cursor parameter or how pagination works. Overall it adds some value beyond the schema but leaves a gap for cursor.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource: posts from a curated list, with an explicit ordering of newest first. It distinguishes this tool from get_timeline and get_author_feed by saying 'accounts on a curated list', though it does not name sibling tools or explicitly contrast them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The instruction to take the list URI from get_pinned_feeds or a bsky.app /lists/ link provides practical guidance on where to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_feed or get_timeline, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.